Legal Opinion

Rialto Mining Corp. v. Commissioner

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided March 25, 1932No. Docket Nos. 48692, 56877PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1. Where a corporation acquired the assets of a predecessor organized under the laws of a different state by the issue of its stock for the stock of the predecessor, it is not entitled to discovery value for depletion purposes on the value of an ore body developed by the predecessor before the reorganization. 2. Petitioner is entitled to recover its entire capital investment by depletion and depreciation ratably over the terms of the lease under which it operated the mines.…

Read the full summary

1. Where a corporation acquired the assets of a predecessor organized under the laws of a different state by the issue of its stock for the stock of the predecessor, it is not entitled to discovery value for depletion purposes on the value of an ore body developed by the predecessor before the reorganization. 2. Petitioner is entitled to recover its entire capital investment by depletion and depreciation ratably over the terms of the lease under which it operated the mines. 3. Certain sales of ore were made in 1925, even though payment was not received until 1926, and the amounts thereof…

1Opinion of the Court

*983OPINION.

Lansdon :

In the original petition it is alleged that the respondent erroneously disallowed as ordinary and necessary expenses certain expenditures incurred for drilling in the years 1926 and 1927 in the respective amounts of $2,782.75 and $291.50. This allegation of error was abandoned at the hearing and accordingly the determination of the respondent is affirmed. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its allegation at Docket No. 48692 that the cost of ores in transit at the close of 1925 was erroneously understated in the amount of $21,354.75 and now agrees that such cost was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Duffy v. Central R. Co. of NJSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Kirkham v. B. F. Fullerton & SonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Alamo Coal Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
  2. Crocker v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
  3. Philadelphia & Reading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
  4. Rialto Mining Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API